Templates fail in a predictable way
A template with fifteen highlighted blanks is a document waiting to go out with a blank still in it. It also means every person keeps their own copy, and central wording updates never reach them.
A clause library assembled from answers cannot do either. That version-control benefit is frequently worth more than the time saving.
What we build
- A structured questionnaire that asks only what changes the document
- An approved clause library, maintained centrally, with owners
- Assembly logic that selects clauses from the answers
- Hard parameters — anything outside them routes to a human instead of generating
- Output in your format, with the record of what was generated, for whom, when
Where the data comes from
The best document automation types nothing. Client details from the CRM, matter details from the practice system, figures from the operational database, and only the genuinely new answers asked.
If the person generating the document is retyping information the business already holds, the integration is not finished.
What we will not automate
Advice, judgement, and any drafting where the words themselves are the value. A generated first draft that a qualified person reviews and owns is safe; a generated final document that goes out unread is not.
We build the assembly and leave the opinion with the professional, and we write that boundary into the specification.
Cost by scope
| Scope | Typical build | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| One document family with a questionnaire | £6,000–£12,000 | 4–6 weeks |
| Clause library for a practice area | £15,000–£30,000 | 8–14 weeks |
| Intake portal with checks and generation | £25,000–£50,000 | 12–20 weeks |
The variable that moves these most is not technical. It is how quickly your firm can agree which version of a clause is the approved one.